Political Derby

Though he had high ambitions, there is a glaring reason why Edward Moore Kennedy did not have national appeal: he wore his liberalism on his sleeve. A hard-left statist from Massachusetts could sit in the U.S. Senate for decades, but the Oval Office aspirations of Teddy were just daydreams.

Then came Barack Hussein Obama II. Though the press presented Barry as a post-partisan, god-like figure, in truth a radical statist to the left of Teddy arrived to occupy the White House in 2009. The country wasn't ready for such an ideologue; otherwise, the candidate's campaign and his media would not have pretended that Obama was a harmless moderate against all evidence to the contrary. The press knew that the non-partisan National Journal had rated Obama the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate -- ranking even to the left of open socialist Bernie Sanders.

Of course, it was the perfect storm for Obama. Bush had been vilified by the press to the extent that almost any Democrat would have won the presidency in 2008 -- and John McCain was the opponent.

The pretender tied McCain to Bush and distanced himself from both. Yet, as many discovered later, there really were few black-and-white differences among the three. One would be unmasked as a central-control statist on steroids, and the other two were just establishment central controllers to lesser degrees.

Messrs. Bush, McCain, and Obama each had a lack of knowledge of or respect for our system of constitutional federalism -- i.e., enumerated federal powers and broad individual state sovereignty.

There was no united front among Republicans to resolutely proclaim the truth that Obama was too liberal (despotic) to be president of the United States. Instead, Mr. Obama was a nice guy with whom they had some policy disagreements.

But as president, Obama resembled more of an unrelenting Chicago-machine partisan than a really great guy -- as noted by the way he forced his will on the American people. The promised C-SPAN cameras to record transparent debate were conspicuously missing as Obama's change was effected at breakneck speed.

After three years of President Obama, there is no good reason for why the Republicans were not ready for 2012.

Mr. Obama's signature accomplishment was rotten for easy picking -- not only because of its inherent unworkability and looming economic drain, but also because it shocks the conscience of American liberty. The so-called Affordable Care Act offends liberty at every turn.

The bill that no lawmaker had read or understood was a 2,409-page maze which empowered federal bureaucracies to centrally plan and control our health care system. It is the only paradigm-changing legislation in American history foisted by one party at a time when not one aye was needed from the opposition party and when polling data revealed that it was imposed against the will of the people. Amazingly, the 37 Democrats who voted against it gave the bill its only bipartisanship.

Everyone knew that the law was an overreach and that the manner in which it was rammed through was dirty and corrupt.

So, in that context, in 2012 the Republicans nominated for the presidency the man the Democrats and their media could thank for being ObamaCare's designer. The architect was going to repeal ObamaCare.

It's no wonder the Republicans are affectionately and not so affectionately referred to as the Party of Stupid.

At least the Republican establishment was against ObamaCare. Nevertheless, the Republicans were still weak inasmuch as they had accepted the Democrats' flawed premise: our health care system was broken and needed a complete overhaul, pronto. That's they talked about repealing and replacing ObamaCare. And, of course, optics-wise, they had the wrong candidate to repeal and replace the oppressive law.

Instead of boasting that they would replace ObamaCare after its repeal (never mind, for now, the constitutional problems), the Republicans could have limited their message to a few simple objectives -- such as opening up state borders to all insurance companies and policies and proposing tort reform -- to bring down health care and insurance costs.

When Republicans fail to soundly contrast themselves from the new Democrats, they lose.

Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, taking Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in 2010, because he ran as the deciding vote against ObamaCare (of course, he never got to vote). Yet after his victory, when asked by a reporter if his election was "a referendum on Obama," Brown perplexingly responded, "No," and proceeded to prattle off-subject. That was a sign of what was to come from Brown. Nevertheless, even in Massachusetts, a Republican was able to win when the contrast was as clear as day and night.

RINOs know that to strongly oppose the new Democrats and their agenda is to offend the sensibilities of their national one-voice press. To defy King Obama is to commit mortal sin. For the sake of one's reputation, it is easier and safer to go the way of the establishment.

Certainly, the present power possessed by the national Democrat media to create public opinion and to destroy its serious opposition with relentless character assassination campaigns is an unfortunate reality. Yes, it's unfair. Yes, the system is unbalanced.

But our country can no longer endure the easy and safe way of politicians in pale pastels.

It is important for establishment Republicans to grasp that the left has nothing but Alinsky tactics, and without the element of fear, the tactics do not work. Put another way, unified bravery disarms the left and exposes their name-calling for what it is. If Republicans can be emancipated from the fear of sticks and stones and slanted reporting, the sky is the limit.

How many issues are there about which Middle America feels strongly but of which the Republicans are too cowardly to take the helm? Rejecting the Democrats' liberal ideas and showing a night-and-day contrast between Dems and Pubs is the only path to victory that matters.

Americans are strongly against illegal immigration. Most Americans want our laws enforced and our borders secured once and for all. Yet, when Arizona tried to enforce illegal immigration laws because of federal dereliction of duty, the Obama administration sued Arizona!

So, rather than working with the new Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform, how about flat-out rejecting the Democrats' agenda and standing united on securing our borders?

Americans are not crazy about the IRS. And, in light of the administration's use of the IRS to silence political opposition before an election -- an abuse of power so great that it makes Watergate look like child's play -- now might be a good time for Republicans to unite on shutting down the IRS as we know it and replacing the income tax with a flat or consumption-based tax. And we must not forget that ObamaCare expands the reach of IRS power into health care. Our tax and health care systems are now disposed for political corruption.

There is the issue of utilizing America's own vast underground petroleum resources and becoming independent of foreign oil. And there is the reprehensible practice of the federal government funneling our hard-earned tax dollars and weaponry to foreign regimes that hate us. And there is...you get the point. The issues to strongly unite on without fear are numerous.

Ted Cruz and 19 other senators recently broke ground and bravely faced the wrath of the Republican establishment and the left for taking a nonconformist stand against ObamaCare.

During his monumental Senate speech, Senator Cruz stated that "[t]he most important objective of this week is to reassert that sovereignty is with we the people[.]" That is a powerful memory to reawaken in the minds of Americans. Let's hope the country is at the initial stages of uniting on our core constitutional principles, for revolutionary events to save the Republic are inevitably approaching.

If we cannot send enough men and women with backbone to Congress, then the next practical step is for patriots in state governments to take Mark Levin's advice and call for a specified amendment convention per our Constitution, to end excessive central control and federal abuse.